I think that the confusion between the two may be caused by the fact that from the point of view of the global meaning, an UDE is, of course, an obstacle to achieving the desired performance level of the system.

However, when we speak about the difference between an Obstacle and an UDE as TOC Thinking Processes elements, there are four aspects to it.

I quite often see Clouds that were built after a person has read a TP book/teaching material. Looking at the solution presented in the Injection box I often ask the author, ‘Hadn’t you thought about this solution or discussed it BEFORE you built the Cloud and recorded this solution in the Injection box?’

If the Injection IS WHAT YOU KNEW WITHOUT THE CLOUD, what was the value of building the Cloud, surfacing assumptions and challenging them?

The cloud is the TOOL FOR FINDING A SOLUTION. And it is not a final tool, because the Injection that was derived with the help of the Cloud is nothing more than raw material for checking that the solution meets the important needs (B and C), and for trimming whichever negative consequences may arise as the result of implementing the derived solution.

If the diamond structure of the broken Cloud presents an Injection that the person had been contemplating before they recorded the situation in the Cloud, it is likely that the person substituted (often unintentionally) the Cloud’s purpose of finding a solution by a purpose of justifying the solution that they had known or contemplated before.

In such cases the Injection will sound as one of the conflicting actions with a slight addition or clarification. The assumption which served as the basis for this Injection will sound as a mere repetition of the arrow connecting the conflicting action to the need (which is a typical mistake in surfacing assumptions), or as an argument supporting this conflicting action that is recorded in the assumption box between D and D’ (also, a typical mistake).

The Cloud CAN be used as tool for justifying the solution/persuading, but AFTER IT HAS SERVED ITS PURPOSE OF FINDING A SOLUTION.

To avoid misunderstanding regarding the objectives of the Cloud, here is the exchange between me and Ian Heptinstall in our Facebook group TOC Practitioners Worldwide on 16 January. Ian, many thanks!

Ian HeptinstallJelena, are you suggesting that it is not worth using the cloud to check an idea one has for a possible solution, or are you suggesting that you need to take more care in writing it, and to properly surface and test all your assumptions?

Jelena FedurkoHi Ian Heptinstall, thanks. No, i do not suggest that it is not worth using the cloud TO CHECK an idea. But then it is a different approach and the Cloud is RECONSTRUCTED – like in reverse engineering. Then you ask, “If THIS is a solution, then what is the problem?” In TOC a problem can be represented by a conflict/dilemma, an UDE, a perceived negative outcome, or an obstacle. If the problem is a conflict, dilemma, or UDE, one can use the Cloud. But as you are correctly saying – then the conscious objective is TO USE THE CLOUD TO CHECK AN IDEA. In the blog I was speaking about the situations when people are aware of the problem, decide to use the Cloud to sort it out, spend time on writing it, and then put the known solution as an Injection. As I wrote – in such cases as a rule you cannot find assumptions that would lead to this injection.
Regarding ‘testing assumptions’, yes all assumptions should be carefully tested before being accepted as raw material for developing injections. Thanks!

30 March 2016, Jelena Fedurko

A few days ago we had the 23d TOCPA Conference in Tennessee. It was a great gathering of TOC practitioners from nine countries. It was good to see old friends and meet new friends. We had two intensive days of presentations, discussions and networking.

The discussion on some subjects has continued after the conference. With permission of the authors and with our big Thank you to them, we publish their discussion.

This post is the response to Alejandro Fernandez’s comment to the post The Five Focusing Steps, the Green Curve and the Red Curve -Part 1, on 10 January 2016, that says:

“Looking the green and red curve I wonder about thinking – and remembering Eli Goldratt presentation – that red curve is growth and green curve is stability, and how it can generate a conflict. Grow but lose stability; be stable but do not grow. Then Eli proposed the progressive equilibrium as the win win solution. We are talking about the same graph?”

The Graph that Alejandro refers to is taken from Eli Goldratt’s discussion on the necessary conditions for a company to become “Ever Flourishing”. The graph looks like that:

“Just one big BUT!! There is a resource conflict. The process engineers in the factories are responsible for both types of projects. New products require new/modified processes. Existing products require improvements – speed, quality, capacity, cost … and also require process engineers. YES, there are product development resources and they are a different set. The conflict arises when the new product is qualified for sale and must be industrialized in the factory. It is in the factory where the conflict occurs.

It is a ‘conflict’ between the factory and product development because the factory delays product industrialization for their factory reasons (local optimization). The product development people often face a question ‘Why should we speed up only to have to wait for the factory to do their part. It feels like the army … hurry up, and wait?’ “

This comment brings in new understanding of the conflict which is now truly between the product development projects and improvement projects.

Let’s look again at the first part of the clarification to the conflict:

“The process engineers in the factories are responsible for both types of projects. New products require new/modified processes. Existing products require improvements – speed, quality, capacity, cost … and also require process engineers. […] The conflict arises when the new product is qualified for sale and must be industrialized in the factory. It is in the factory where the conflict occurs.”

If we go along with the claim that there is a resource conflict, and based on the statements “The process engineers in the factories are responsible for both types of projects” and “It is in the factory where the conflict occurs”, the conflict seems to be of factory process engineers and looks like that:

For the moment assume that the factory/company decides correctly which product development projects should be pursued (for instance with the 6 technology questions, AND improvement projects are also selected correctly with proper application of T, I, OE and proper focus on the organization’s constraint.

This graph with the green and red curve belongs to the core of TOC. It is embedded in the logo of TOCPA. It represents the motto of Ever Improve way of managing systems, it shows the point in which managing the constraint is critical for the future of the system, and more messages.

Recently, we have had discussions with some TOC practitioners that expressed some frustration about the progress of their implementations. They claimed that while the first part of the TOC project produced outstanding results within a few months, the continuation of the growth was not as rapid and not as easy as they have expected it to be.